Aussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides

MoominPappa wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."

And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious.  No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.

if it didn't work I don't know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.

You forgot cricket batsmen, NFL stars, ice hockey players and porn stars that haven’t passed an AIDS test.

burtthebike wrote:

Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.

"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."

And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious.  No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.

Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit.  Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.

 

 

You've taken the well known negative effects of compulsory helmet laws and extrapolated wildly.

Where is your evidence that requiring helmets on a sportive or leisure ride damages cycling?

Where is your evidence that any form of helmet promotion damages cycling?

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.

"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."

And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious.  No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.

Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit.  Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.

 

 

You've taken the well known negative effects of compulsory helmet laws and extrapolated wildly.

Where is your evidence that requiring helmets on a sportive or leisure ride damages cycling?

Where is your evidence that any form of helmet promotion damages cycling?

Admittedly I haven't found any evidence that, since legal compulsion results in the unintended consequence* of reduction in cyclist numbers, their promotion and mandating in some events also has unintended consequences of a similar nature.

But I think it's pretty logical to assume that it'd be a sliding scale (ie. somewhere between zero effect and full-on Aussie) and there are examples on here of people who won't consider certain events because helmets are mandatory.

Do you think it's logical, in the face of evidence that legal compulsion reduces numbers of cycling, that other forms of promotion and mandating have zero consequences of similar nature?

* You have to wonder, when there is a fair amount of evidence regarding unintended consequences, whether the consequences are actually unintended.

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.

"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."

And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious.  No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.

Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit.  Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.

 

 

You've taken the well known negative effects of compulsory helmet laws and extrapolated wildly. Where is your evidence that requiring helmets on a sportive or leisure ride damages cycling? Where is your evidence that any form of helmet promotion damages cycling?

Admittedly I haven't found any evidence that, since legal compulsion results in the unintended consequence* of reduction in cyclist numbers, their promotion and mandating in some events also has unintended consequences of a simar nature. But I think it's pretty logical to assume that it'd be a sliding scale (ie. somewhere between zero effect and full-on Aussie) and there are examples on here of people who won't consider certain events because helmets are mandatory. Do you think it's logical, in the face of evidence that legal compulsion reduces numbers of cycling, that other forms of promotion and mandating have zero consequences of similar nature? * You have to wonder, when there is a fair amount of evidence regarding unintended consequences, whether the consequences are actually unintended.

I'm sayin' nuffink!

davel wrote:

Admittedly I haven't found any evidence that, since legal compulsion results in the unintended consequence* of reduction in cyclist numbers, their promotion and mandating in some events also has unintended consequences of a similar nature.

But I think it's pretty logical to assume that it'd be a sliding scale (ie. somewhere between zero effect and full-on Aussie) and there are examples on here of people who won't consider certain events because helmets are mandatory.

Do you think it's logical, in the face of evidence that legal compulsion reduces numbers of cycling, that other forms of promotion and mandating have zero consequences of similar nature?

* You have to wonder, when there is a fair amount of evidence regarding unintended consequences, whether the consequences are actually unintended.

So there's no evidence for Burt's assertions.

I am shocked. Shocked.

I don't think its logical to assume that promotion will have the same or similar effect as (strictly enforced) compulsion.

Helmets have been quite widely promoted in the UK for years and the number of sportives grows every year.

Despite this cycling is growing in popularity.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Admittedly I haven't found any evidence that, since legal compulsion results in the unintended consequence* of reduction in cyclist numbers, their promotion and mandating in some events also has unintended consequences of a similar nature.

But I think it's pretty logical to assume that it'd be a sliding scale (ie. somewhere between zero effect and full-on Aussie) and there are examples on here of people who won't consider certain events because helmets are mandatory.

Do you think it's logical, in the face of evidence that legal compulsion reduces numbers of cycling, that other forms of promotion and mandating have zero consequences of similar nature?

* You have to wonder, when there is a fair amount of evidence regarding unintended consequences, whether the consequences are actually unintended.

So there's no evidence for Burt's assertions.

I am shocked. Shocked.

I don't think its logical to assume that promotion will have the same effect as (strictly enforced) compulsion.

Helmets have been quite widely promoted in the UK for years and the number of sportives grows every year.

Despite this cycling is growing in popularity.

I didn't say 'the same effect', did I?

Do you think there'll be zero effect?

If you think, as I do, that there'll be negative effects, then it just becomes an ideological evidence-less bunfight about where exactly on the scale you put it. And that goes for you and me.

davel wrote:

I didn't say 'the same effect', did I?

Do you think there'll be zero effect?

If you think, as I do, that there'll be negative effects, then it just becomes an ideological evidence-less bunfight about where exactly on the scale you put it. And that goes for you and me.

I actually edited the post straight after I wrote it to say 'Same or similar'.

As I said compulsion produces a large drop in participation.

Promotion and sportives don't appear to produce any drop in participation.

Any effect, if there even is one, is therefore likely to be quite small and certainly nowhere near the magnitude of the effect of compulsion.

The onus is really on Burt to provide the evidence for his claim.

Rich_cb wrote:

Any effect, if there even is one, is therefore likely to be quite small and certainly nowhere near the magnitude of the effect of compulsion.

All relative and immeasurable.

We probably disagree on the scale, but you can no more back up the 'closer to zero on the scale' claim anymore than I can the 'closer to Oz on the scale' claim.

Evidence for an increase in cycling participation isn't the same as evidence that participation is unaffected - we have really shitty modal share compared to civilised countries that wear helmets much less than we do (I know there are loads of other factors, which is why I'm not staking my claim on that - or anything, as I'm admitting it won't be 'proved' [as in, it causes n% impact] either way).

What we do agree on, seemingly, is that it'll be on that scale somewhere, as does Burt.

So why is the onus on Burt to provide evidence any more than it is on you or me?

davel wrote:

All relative and immeasurable.

We probably disagree on the scale, but you can no more back up the 'closer to zero on the scale' claim anymore than I can the 'closer to Oz on the scale' claim.

Evidence for an increase in cycling participation isn't the same as evidence that participation is unaffected - we have really shitty modal share compared to civilised countries that wear helmets much less than we do (I know there are loads of other factors, which is why I'm not staking my claim on that - or anything, as I'm admitting it won't be 'proved' [as in, it causes n% impact] either way).

What we do agree on, seemingly, is that it'll be on that scale somewhere, as does Burt.

So why is the onus on Burt to provide evidence any more than it is on you or me?

Because Burt made the claim.

Not hard to figure out that the person making the claim should provide the evidence.

All I did was ask him for the evidence. It turns out it's spurious at best.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

All relative and immeasurable. We probably disagree on the scale, but you can no more back up the 'closer to zero on the scale' claim anymore than I can the 'closer to Oz on the scale' claim. Evidence for an increase in cycling participation isn't the same as evidence that participation is unaffected - we have really shitty modal share compared to civilised countries that wear helmets much less than we do (I know there are loads of other factors, which is why I'm not staking my claim on that - or anything, as I'm admitting it won't be 'proved' [as in, it causes n% impact] either way). What we do agree on, seemingly, is that it'll be on that scale somewhere, as does Burt. So why is the onus on Burt to provide evidence any more than it is on you or me?

Because Burt made the claim. Not hard to figure out that the person making the claim should provide the evidence. All I did was ask him for the evidence. It turns out it's spurious at best.

Isn't it odd that it's only the people against helmet compulsion and propaganda who have to provide proof?  If only that applied to the helmet zealots.

Rich_cb wrote:

Because Burt made the claim.

Not hard to figure out that the person making the claim should provide the evidence.

Claim vs counter-claim.

Not hard to figure out that if there was sufficient evidence to the contrary, you've shot his argument down by now.

And before we get all semanticsey, I'm not asking you to prove a negative, here. Like I said, we're all arguing ideologically over our largely unprovable stance on the scale of how much damage enforcing helmets on sportives etc does. That's why it's a bit much to demand evidence without any of your own.

davel wrote:

Claim vs counter-claim.

Not hard to figure out that if there was sufficient evidence to the contrary, you've shot his argument down by now.

And before we get all semanticsey, I'm not asking you to prove a negative, here. Like I said, we're all arguing ideologically over our largely unprovable stance on the scale of how much damage enforcing helmets on sportives etc does. That's why it's a bit much to demand evidence without any of your own.

It's really nothing like what you're describing.

Burt has made several claims.

I've asked for the evidence that support those claims.

That's it.

If it's unprovable then Burt should really not be making his claim in the first place as it's a hunch at best and a lie at worst.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Claim vs counter-claim. Not hard to figure out that if there was sufficient evidence to the contrary, you've shot his argument down by now. And before we get all semanticsey, I'm not asking you to prove a negative, here. Like I said, we're all arguing ideologically over our largely unprovable stance on the scale of how much damage enforcing helmets on sportives etc does. That's why it's a bit much to demand evidence without any of your own.

It's really nothing like what you're describing. Burt has made several claims. I've asked for the evidence that support those claims. That's it. If it's unprovable then Burt should really not be making his claim in the first place as it's a hunch at best and a lie at worst.

You keep asking for evidence and when I supply it, you either ignore it or deny it.  Nowt so blind.......

Try  googling for cognitive dissonance.

How many shares do you have in helmet manufacturers?

burtthebike wrote:

You keep asking for evidence and when I supply it, you either ignore it or deny it.  Nowt so blind.......

Try  googling for cognitive dissonance.

How many shares do you have in helmet manufacturers?

You've provided no evidence for your sportive/leisure ride claim.

You've provided 1 table from 1 paper published 22 years ago to back up your helmet promotion claim.

That table only shows a correlation. Multiple alternative explanations for that correlation exist.

The rest of the paper isn't freely available so it's impossible to scrutinise method or even read the authors' comments about the correlation.

Forgive me if I'm a tad sceptical especially given your track record for evidence free statements.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Admittedly I haven't found any evidence that, since legal compulsion results in the unintended consequence* of reduction in cyclist numbers, their promotion and mandating in some events also has unintended consequences of a similar nature. But I think it's pretty logical to assume that it'd be a sliding scale (ie. somewhere between zero effect and full-on Aussie) and there are examples on here of people who won't consider certain events because helmets are mandatory. Do you think it's logical, in the face of evidence that legal compulsion reduces numbers of cycling, that other forms of promotion and mandating have zero consequences of similar nature? * You have to wonder, when there is a fair amount of evidence regarding unintended consequences, whether the consequences are actually unintended.

So there's no evidence for Burt's assertions. I am shocked. Shocked. I don't think its logical to assume that promotion will have the same or similar effect as (strictly enforced) compulsion. Helmets have been quite widely promoted in the UK for years and the number of sportives grows every year. Despite this cycling is growing in popularity.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

You must be in a perpetual state of shock. 

Rides such as sportives may be growing, but utility cycling isn't, and I personally think it is rather more important to get non-cyclists riding to the shops, school, college and work than it is to have a few hundred people pretending to race on a weekend.

burtthebike wrote:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

You must be in a perpetual state of shock. 

Rides such as sportives may be growing, but utility cycling isn't, and I personally think it is rather more important to get non-cyclists riding to the shops, school, college and work than it is to have a few hundred people pretending to race on a weekend.

I am actually quite shocked that you have any evidence at all. Makes a welcome change.

What you've got is a fairly weak correlation to back up the helmet promotion claim.

Sharks and Ice Cream springs to mind.

Anything to back up the sportive claim?

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

You must be in a perpetual state of shock. 

Rides such as sportives may be growing, but utility cycling isn't, and I personally think it is rather more important to get non-cyclists riding to the shops, school, college and work than it is to have a few hundred people pretending to race on a weekend.

I am actually quite shocked that you have any evidence at all. Makes a welcome change. What you've got is a fairly weak correlation to back up the helmet promotion claim. Sharks and Ice Cream springs to mind. Anything to back up the sportive claim?

Well, as I suggested, you must be in a permanent state of shock if someone providing proof induces that state in you.  Have you considered minfullness or yoga?

"Anything to back up the sportive claim?"  What claim?  I claimed nothing about sportives.  I'm shocked that you can ask a totally baseless question.

burtthebike wrote:

Well, as I suggested, you must be in a permanent state of shock if someone providing proof induces that state in you.  Have you considered minfullness or yoga?

"Anything to back up the sportive claim?"  What claim?  I claimed nothing about sportives.  I'm shocked that you can ask a totally baseless question.

Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.

You'll probably claim that sportives aren't leisure rides so I'll rephrase to avoid that tedium.

Any evidence for your leisure rides claim?

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Well, as I suggested, you must be in a permanent state of shock if someone providing proof induces that state in you.  Have you considered minfullness or yoga?

"Anything to back up the sportive claim?"  What claim?  I claimed nothing about sportives.  I'm shocked that you can ask a totally baseless question.

Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.

You'll probably claim that sportives aren't leisure rides so I'll rephrase to avoid that tedium. Any evidence for your leisure rides claim?

Since the point of the third sentence of mine that you quoted is that sportives are leisure rides, I am totally baffled by your assertion that I would claim that they aren't.    And shocked, of course.

Having helmet rules for leisure rides is part of the helmet culture and dangerises cycling, implying that it is far riskier than other activities like walking, for which no special safety gear is required.  Sportives are just fantasists pretending to be professional racers, so they have to have a helmet rule to maintain the illusion and get the dreamers to cough up the exorbitant fees.

burtthebike wrote:

Since the point of the third sentence of mine that you quoted is that sportives are leisure rides, I am totally baffled by your assertion that I would claim that they aren't.    And shocked, of course.

Having helmet rules for leisure rides is part of the helmet culture and dangerises cycling, implying that it is far riskier than other activities like walking, for which no special safety gear is required.  Sportives are just fantasists pretending to be professional racers, so they have to have a helmet rule to maintain the illusion and get the dreamers to cough up the exorbitant fees.

So that's a no to evidence then?

Rich_cb wrote:

So there's no evidence for Burt's assertions. I am shocked. Shocked. I don't think its logical to assume that promotion will have the same or similar effect as (strictly enforced) compulsion. Helmets have been quite widely promoted in the UK for years and the number of sportives grows every year. Despite this cycling is growing in popularity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY&vl=en

It is worth watching the whole video, but your evidence is at 13 minutes.

Experious wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY&vl=en

It is worth watching the whole video, but your evidence is at 13 minutes.

Correlation is not causation.

There's a really good correlation between the voluntary increase in bicycle helmet wearing in the UK and a decrease in cyclist KSIs and serious head injuries.

As has been extensively discussed on another thread that doesn't prove causation either.

Rich_cb wrote:

Experious wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY&vl=en

It is worth watching the whole video, but your evidence is at 13 minutes.

Correlation is not causation. There's a really good correlation between the voluntary increase in bicycle helmet wearing in the UK and a decrease in cyclist KSIs and serious head injuries. As has been extensively discussed on another thread that doesn't prove causation either.

Doesn't stop you arguing for causation there, though.

And, weirdly, against it, here.

Your stance (simplified massively) is:

More helmets; fewer KSIs = causation.

More helmets; fewer cyclists ≠ causation.

What I think that gives us is strong evidence of Rich_cb's bias.

*

davel wrote:

Doesn't stop you arguing for causation there, though.

And, weirdly, against it, here.

Your stance (simplified massively) is:

More helmets; fewer KSIs = causation.

More helmets; fewer cyclists ≠ causation.

 

What I think that gives us is strong evidence of Rich_cb's bias.

 

Misrepresentation as usual.

I never argued that it proved causation.

In fact I explicitly stated that it did not on multiple occasions.

So my position has been consistent.

As you're so keen on consistency I'm assuming you refuse to accept that helmet laws and helmet promotion reduce cycling?

Wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of bias after all.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Doesn't stop you arguing for causation there, though.

And, weirdly, against it, here.

Your stance (simplified massively) is:

More helmets; fewer KSIs = causation.

More helmets; fewer cyclists ≠ causation.

 

What I think that gives us is strong evidence of Rich_cb's bias.

 

Misrepresentation as usual. I never argued that it proved causation. In fact I explicitly stated that it did not on multiple occasions. So my position has been consistent. As you're so keen on consistency I'm assuming you refuse to accept that helmet laws and helmet promotion reduce cycling? Wouldn't want anyone to accuse you of bias after all.

Nice try.

I have never argued that an increase in helmet-wearing didn't result in a decrease in KSIs. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

I argued that the evidence for a correlation put forward by you was pretty weak.

Now, if you'd like to explain how that's inconsistent with believing that helmet promotion might just have some negative unintended consequences, I've got a few mins free and I'm up for a chuckle at some pictures...

(I think your position is even worse if it is as you say it is. On the one hand, you recognise a correlation that you're happy to tie to helmets. On the other, you see a correlation that has to be explained away by something other than 'helmets'.

The difference? One makes helmets look good, the other makes helmets look bad. Total bias.)

davel wrote:

Nice try.

I have never argued that an increase in helmet-wearing didn't result in a decrease in KSIs. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

I argued that the evidence for a correlation put forward by you was pretty weak.

Now, if you'd like to explain how that's inconsistent with believing that helmet promotion might just have some negative unintended consequences, I've got a few mins free and I'm up for a chuckle at some pictures...

 

(I think your position is even worse if it is as you say it is. On the one hand, you recognise a correlation that you're happy to tie to helmets. On the other, you see a correlation that has to be explained away by something other than 'helmets'.

The difference? One makes helmets look good, the other makes helmets look bad. Total bias.)

It's all to do with the strength of the evidence. In this case the correlation is provided via an unverifiable table and a YouTube video.

Forgive me for being sceptical.

In the previous thread there was a huge amount of high quality data over the course of a decade.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Nice try.

I have never argued that an increase in helmet-wearing didn't result in a decrease in KSIs. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

I argued that the evidence for a correlation put forward by you was pretty weak.

Now, if you'd like to explain how that's inconsistent with believing that helmet promotion might just have some negative unintended consequences, I've got a few mins free and I'm up for a chuckle at some pictures...

 

(I think your position is even worse if it is as you say it is. On the one hand, you recognise a correlation that you're happy to tie to helmets. On the other, you see a correlation that has to be explained away by something other than 'helmets'.

The difference? One makes helmets look good, the other makes helmets look bad. Total bias.)

It's all to do with the strength of the evidence. In this case the correlation is provided via an unverifiable table and a YouTube video. Forgive me for being sceptical. In the previous thread there was a huge amount of high quality data over the course of a decade.

Valid argument... I haven't had a look at the sources quoted here.

How do the correlations themselves compare? 

davel wrote:

Valid argument... I haven't had a look at the sources quoted here.

How do the correlations themselves compare? 

I don't think they're anywhere near as convincing.

In both examples the data appears to be limited to one year so it's impossible to assess the trend.

The raw data isn't readily available for scrutiny so the method can't be assessed for either example.

Based on that I'd say it's pretty poor quality evidence for helmet promotion harming cycling.

By contrast the correlation between mandatory helmet laws and decreasing cycling has been demonstrated in several different jurisdictions with high quality datasets, therefore despite it just being a correlation I'm convinced by that relationship.

Rich_cb][quote=davel wrote:

It's all to do with the strength of the evidence. .

Indeed.  All the long term, large scale, scientific research done by disinterested researchers using robust methodology shows one thing; cycle helmets don't reduce risk.  All the short term, small scale, unscientific research done by blatantly biased researchers using the lowest rated for reliability methodology shows that cycle helmets are fantastically effective.

Yes, it's the strength of the evidence.